A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When you give someone a gift on condition they return it (matana al menas lehachzir), are they truly owners? The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 6b asks why such a gift works for redeeming an esrog but not for selling land or effecting marriage. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: conditional ownership may establish you're not a borrower, but it may lack the reciprocal obligation-generating power needed for kinyan kesef.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 6b regarding the status of matana al menas lehachzir (a gift given on condition that it be returned). The Gemara presents a fundamental question: if such a conditional gift is not considered a valid gift (lo shmei matana), why does it work for certain purposes like esrog but not for others like mecher (sale of land), kiddushin (marriage), or pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn)? The shiur presents a foundational distinction between two aspects of ownership in matana al menas lehachzir. The first question is whether the recipient is genuinely an owner of the object or merely a shomer (guardian/borrower). If matana al menas lehachzir is shmei matana (considered a valid gift), the recipient is an owner; if lo shmei matana, they are merely a borrower. This distinction is critical for laws requiring ownership versus mere possession.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Kiddushin 6b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
